ERIC EJ1159195: The Superintendent/Principal: A Position Born in Purgatory

2017·0.27 MB·English

by  ERIC

The Superintendent/Principal: A Position Born in Purgatory

Michael C. Curry
V.I.T. School District, Table Grove, Illinois

Lora L. Wolf
Western Illinois University

The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the priority level of the roles and
responsibilities of the superintendent/principal in Illinois as perceived by board of education
presidents, teachers’ union presidents, and practicing superintendent/principals in the 102 Illinois
school districts utilizing the superintendent/principal model. The findings found agreement in the
two roles (chief financial officer and role model) and two responsibilities (financial oversight and
build a positive and safe school climate) along with the least important role (politician) and the
least important responsibility (oversight/supervision of student activities and extra curricular
events).

Education Leadership Review of Doctoral Research, Vol. 5. Fall 2017 ISSN: 1532-0723
© 2017 International Council of Professors of Educational Administration.
This manuscript may not be used commercially or edited. When quoting portions of this
text, full attribution to the author/s is required.

30
School leadership has evolved since the era of the one-room school with no administrative
personnel. Today schools and districts are led by individuals trained for specific roles and
responsibilities. The two most prevalent educational leadership positions are the district-level
superintendent and the building-level principal. Each position serves schools in unique ways.
The roles associated with the modern superintendency include chief executive officer, chief
financial officer, public relations director, community liaison, visionary, role model, politician,
human resources director, facilities manager, and educational expert. Superintendents’
responsibilities include district financial oversight; policy regulation; district personnel
management; district facilities management; professional development; networking; personal
professional learning; political involvement; board and staff communication; and attending
meetings with staff, board members, constituents, and colleagues (Carter & Cunningham, 1997;
Hall, 2008; Hesbol, 2005; Houston, 2007; Petersen & Short, 2001).
Today’s building principals’ roles include instructional leader, change agent, building-level
human resource director, building manager, curriculum expert, role model, and communicator.
Principals’ responsibilities include setting building goals; creating a building’s vision; overseeing
curriculum; evaluating teachers and support staff; disciplining students; supervising student
activities; building relationships; identifying, managing, and participating in professional
development; managing building-level personnel issues; meeting with parents, staff, students, and
community members; and supervising extra-curricular activities (Fink & Resnick, 2001; Hesbol,
2005; Lortie, 1975).
In districts with declining enrollment, decreased state funding, increased costs, and pressure
from community members to keep their schools, superintendents and boards of education look for
ways to lower expenditures. Since personnel expenditures make up a significant part of the budget,
personnel is often targeted. One cost-saving measure utilized in such districts is reducing
administrative costs by combining the positions of superintendent and principal. The dual-role
position is referred to as superintendent/principal. This study focused on the roles and the
responsibilities of the superintendent/principal.

Statement of the Problem

The superintendent/principal position forces a single administrator to assume two disparate
roles. This position poses challenges for the administrator and his or her constituents. Jim Burgett,
motivational speaker and former superintendent/principal, described the superintendent/principal as
a “position born in purgatory” (Personal Correspondence, 2015) highlighting the torment and often
temporary stay of superintendent/principals.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative study was to examine the perceptions of board presidents,
teachers’ union presidents, and superintendent/principals in regards to the priority of the roles and
responsibilities of the dual-role administrator. Additionally, this study examined the differences
between the groups’ perceptions of what were and what were not essential roles and
responsibilities. The findings provide superintendent/principals information as they serve in two
demanding leadership roles simultaneously.

31
Review of the Literature

The superintendent/principal is a complex leadership position that calls upon a single
individual to fulfill the responsibilities of two different leadership roles. This review of the
literature discusses the roles of superintendent, principal, and superintendent/principal.
The position of superintendent has evolved dramatically since its creation in 1837.
Superintendents are no longer merely clerical managers hired to relieve the school board of their
day-to-day paperwork. Instead, superintendents are required to demonstrate a variety of skills that
necessitate a multi-talented, competent, and inspiring leader (Carter & Cunningham, 1997;
Chapman, 1997; Geivett, 2010; Kowalski, 2006). Blumberg and Blumberg (1985) noted the
importance of creating positive working relationships with and meeting expectations of boards
and found that the most critical relationship in running a school system is between the
superintendent and the board of education.
The role of building principal has also evolved from a principal-teacher or a disciplinarian
to a more complex middle-management role. Sergiovanni et al. (1999) writes that:
The principal’s job is to coordinate, direct, and support the work of others by defining
objectives, evaluating performance, providing organizational resources, building a
supportive psychological climate, running interference with parents, planning, scheduling,
bookkeeping, resolving teacher conflicts, defusing student insurrections, placating the
central office, and otherwise helping to make things go. (p. 58)
Hence, the combined position of superintendent/principal requires one individual to focus
on the responsibilities associated with the district chief executive officer (superintendent) and the
building-level leader (principal). The dynamics of the role require one individual to handle almost
every leadership role in the district while attempting to provide students with the most successful
learning experiences possible (Geivett, 2010). Dragan (1982) conducted a study of administrative
principals, a position similar to superintendent/principals, and found:
The expectations that the school board members and teachers have of the administrative
principal [superintendent/principal] are very different from those of the superintendent and
building principal. School board members expect the administrative principal to act like a
superintendent whereas the teachers expect him or her to act more like a building principal.
Intense role conflict exists. (p. 10)
In small districts many employees wear numerous hats and have an overabundance of
necessary duties that would normally be handled by others in a larger setting. For example,
Copeland (2013) detailed several nontraditional duties rural superintendents performed out of
necessity: snow shoveling, bus driving, helping in the cafeteria, substitute teaching, taking out the
trash, and sweeping floors. For a person serving in the dual-role of superintendent/principal,
donning extra hats constitutes added burden to an already full workload.
In order to wear many hats, a leader must have varied skill sets. Schmuck and Schmuck
(1989) noted that “superintendents in small towns must be generalists. Often they are the only
educator in the central office and must be a jack of all trades” (p. 6). Because of this, rural districts
often seek generalists who have a broad range of knowledge and skills to lead their school systems
(Kowalski, 2006).
The literature lacks scholarly research on the dual-role position of superintendent/principal.
Two studies (Hesbol, 2005; Mattingly, 1994) explored the topic. Hesbol stated “as a dual-role
position with no assistance other than through relationships developed among the board of
education, school personnel, and the community, the superintendent/principal serves in ways
known only to the individual in this position” (p. 8). According to Mattingly’s findings,

32
superintendent/principals and board presidents have differing opinions on both the importance of
and functions of the roles of superintendents and principals. He wrote:
The superintendent/principals understand more the intricacies of the roles since they live
both of them. If this hypothesis is correct, the indication would be that the BEPs (board of
education presidents) do not fully understand the nature of a combined
superintendent/principal role. (p. 122-123)
Carter and Cunningham (1997) noted that superintendents must deal with very different
factions including school board members, teachers, and unions. Each group has its own idea of
the roles and responsibilities of an effective superintendent. Based on the differing perceptions of
the superintendent/principal position, this study extends the previous limited research by
examining the perception of board presidents, teachers’ union presidents, and
superintendent/principals in regard to the priority of the roles and responsibilities of the dual-role
administrator.

Methodology

A quantitative methodology was chosen for this study in order to examine the phenomenon
of the superintendent/principal position “by collecting numerical data that are analyzed using
mathematical based methods” (Aliaga & Gunderson, as cited in Muijis, 2004, p. 1). In this study,
survey data was gathered from Illinois practicing superintendent/principals along with their school
board presidents and teachers’ union presidents.

Research Questions

Four research questions guided this quantitative study:
1. What roles and responsibilities do board presidents perceive as essential for
superintendent/principals?
2. What roles and responsibilities do teachers’ union presidents perceive as essential for
superintendent/principals?
3. What roles and responsibilities do superintendent/principals perceive as essential for
superintendent/principals?
4. What differences exist between board presidents, teachers’ union presidents, and
superintendent/principals in their perception of the essential roles and responsibilities
for the superintendent/principal?

The Population and Sample

Population. This study was conducted in the State of Illinois. According to the Illinois
State Board of Education (ISBE), 102 Illinois districts employ a superintendent/principal. Of those
102 districts, 28 were urban and 74 were rural. In examining the grade level organization of the
study’s population, 32 were unit districts (K-12), 65 were elementary districts (K-8), and five were
high school districts (9-12).
Three populations comprised this study: currently practicing superintendent principals in
the State of Illinois, their board presidents, and their teachers’ union presidents. Practicing
superintendent/principals were selected for the study because they are employed in the dual-role
position and would have first hand knowledge of the phenomenon. This study built upon Hesbol’s
(2005) research that noted that the superintendent/principal knows the role in “ways only known to

33
the individual in this position” (p. 8).
Board presidents were selected as a respondent group due to the relationship between a
superintendent and board president as an important component in the success or lack thereof of the
board-superintendent leadership team. According to Petersen and Short (2001), the school board
president’s perception of the superintendent’s abilities is vital to the stability and success of the
superintendent.
The final population, teachers’ union presidents, was selected because of the nature of the
relationship between the between teachers’ union presidents and the two separate administrative
positions: the district-level superintendent and the building-level principal. Union leaders look to
superintendents on issues such as contract negotiations, personnel decisions, and program viability
(Harris, 1999). On the other hand, teachers and teachers’ union presidents look to building
principals for conflict resolution, student behavior management, staff morale, and day-to-day
building management (Daresh, 2002). The perceptions of what roles and responsibilities are
considered most essential to teachers’ union presidents will assist in better understanding the role
of superintendent/principal.
The sample. The sample consisted of the individuals who completed the survey: 31 board
presidents (31% of the population), 27 teachers’ union presidents (26% of the population), and 65
superintendent/principals (64% of the population). Demographic information for the sample
revealed the type of district (predominantly rural), number of teachers supervised (62% of
principals supervised 11-20 teachers), grades for which the administrator was responsible (the
majority were elementary districts), number of employees supervised by the administrator (75% of
superintendents supervised fewer than 51 employees), and whether administrative assistance was
available (18% of superintendent/principals had an assistant principal, dean, or head teacher).

Instrumentation

The instrument used for this study was a self-administered (Bourque and Fielder, 1995),
cross-sectional survey that collected data at a single point in time from multiple populations (Scott
& Morrison, 2006). Three parallel survey instruments were utilized: 1) practicing
superintendent/principals, 2) current presidents of the superintendent/principal’s boards of
education, and 3) current presidents of the superintendent/principal’s teachers’ union. The surveys
were designed to measure the level of agreement and/or variance on what roles and responsibilities
of the superintendent/principals were perceived as essential to each group of respondents.
Additionally, electronic distribution via SurveyMonkey was selected “to more easily create
assessment instruments, distribute to potential respondents, gather and have access to the resulting
data” (Marra & Bogue, 2006, p. 7).
For this study, the researcher elected to design a survey rather than use a pre-existing
survey. This was because there was no existing survey on the topic. The researcher-developed
questions were based on position-related experiences and role and responsibility expectations
found in the literature (Carter & Cunningham, 1997; Cotton, 2003; Marzano et al., 2005; Waters &
Marzano, 2006). Fourteen roles and 20 responsibilities were identified.
Demographic questions were used to determine eligibility including whether the respondent
was currently a superintendent/principal, board president, or teachers’ union president and whether
the district was currently using the dual-role administrator model of superintendent/principal. If
participants responded “no” to either question, they were exited from the survey.
The demographic questions were followed by a series of scaled response questions that
asked respondents to consider the level of priority of superintendent/principals’ specific

34
responsibilities and roles. According to Gall et al. (2007), scaled response scores are used to
measure an individual’s agreement with various statements about attitudes or beliefs. In this study,
the responses “not a priority,” “low priority,” “medium priority,” “high priority,” and “essential
priority” were used to determine and then compare attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions of board
presidents, teachers’ union presidents, and superintendent/principals about the levels of priority of
the roles and responsibilities of superintendent/principals.
At the conclusion of the survey, an automated statement was generated expressing gratitude
to the participants. The statement included that study results and conclusions would be shared with
all superintendent/principal districts in Illinois.

Data Collection Procedures

Prior to distribution of the survey, the researcher attempted to make personal contact via
telephone and voicemail with the entire population of superintendent/principals study in order to
notify them of the forthcoming survey-related email. Telephone contact was made with 41 (40%)
of the 101 superintendent/principals and an additional 20 voicemail messages were left for those
that could not be reached by phone and had voicemail configured.
A web-based survey instrument, utilizing SurveyMonkey, was distributed to the
superintendent/principals serving in Illinois via email with addresses supplied by the ISBE as part
of their annual district directory. The initial email about the survey included the information about
the study including an explanation of the researcher’s background as a doctoral student,
information about the nature of the study, assurances of confidentiality, directions for accessing the
survey, and an outline of the plans for disseminating the survey to appropriate constituents.
Survey distribution for the board presidents and teachers’ union presidents occurred in two
ways. First, the email to the superintendent/principals included a request for respondents to provide
email contact information for their board presidents and teachers’ union presidents. Upon receipt of
email addresses from superintendent/principals, the researcher sent surveys to board presidents and
teachers’ union presidents. This email included the superintendent/principal’s support of the study,
provided additional information about the study, and included hyperlinks to the appropriate survey.
However, only two superintendent/principals provided email contact information for their board
presidents or teachers’ union presidents, so it was untenable for the researcher to exclusively rely
on this option. Thus, the researcher provided a letter designated for board presidents and a second
letter for teachers’ union presidents as an attachment to an email sent to practicing
superintendent/principals. The superintendent/principals were asked to forward the proper
attachment to their board president and teacher’s union president notifying them of the nature of
the research and providing them a survey participation request and the appropriate survey link.
Upon initiating the survey, each respondent was required to consent to participate via an
initial page that included all the required consent information1 and a checkbox stating participants
had read and understood the consent form and consented to participate in the research.
In the initial email with the survey’s instructions, respondents were informed of the
timeframe (initially four weeks) to complete the survey. After the second week, the researcher sent
a reminder of the four-week timeframe. An additional reminder email was sent five days prior to

1 Information included on the initial page of the survey included the anticipated length of the survey (10 minutes), that
the survey was voluntary, that participants could discontinue at any time, and that there were no foreseeable risks to the
participant).

35
the survey closing date to thank those superintendent/principals who had participated and to request
assistance in acquiring responses from board presidents and teachers’ union presidents.
Due to a low online survey response rate for board presidents and teachers’ union
presidents, the survey window was extended another two weeks. Additionally, to increase the
response rate, paper copies of the survey and survey reminder links were mailed to districts in care
of the board president and teachers’ union president. Mailing included information about the
electronic survey and self-addressed stamped return envelopes to return the paper version.

Data Analysis Procedures

The survey data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS).
Demographic data for all three respondent groups was collected and categorized on a nominal
scale. A nominal scale produces measures that have no order or quantitative meaning (Gall et al.,
2007). Each set of demographic questions was also analyzed to determine frequency and
percentage of answer selection.
The first method of analysis determined central tendencies by calculating the mean for
perceived levels of priority of superintendent/principals’ roles and responsibilities. The first three
research questions were analyzed using means and standard deviations to describe the level of
priority for each role and responsibility through scaled responses of board of education presidents,
teachers’ union presidents, and superintendent/principals.
Research question four2 was analyzed. In order to compare the variance between the scores
of board presidents, teachers’ union presidents, and superintendent/principals. The researcher
utilized the univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) test which is “a statistical procedure that
compares the amount of between-group variance in individuals’ scores with the amount of within-
group variance” (Gall et al., 2007, p. 318). Additionally, a Least Significant Difference (LSD) post
hoc test was conducted on all survey items to explore pair-wise comparisons of item means with
(<) .01 considered significant. Due to small sample sizes and the differences in sample sizes, the
researcher elected to use Test of Between-Subject Effects level of .01 as significant. A partial Eta2-
level of .25 or higher was considered significant.

Key Findings

Based on the data analysis, key findings were identified. Key findings on time allocation
and the dual-role position and district’s long-term survival along with findings about the roles and
responsibilities as identified by all three respondent groups will be presented.

Time Allocation

Participants were asked what percentage of time a superintendent/principal should spend on
superintendent responsibilities versus principal responsibilities. All three groups indicated that
more time should be spent on superintendent duties than principal duties. Board presidents
responded that superintendent/principals should spend an average of 60% of their time on
superintendent responsibilities and 40% on principal responsibilities. Teachers’ union presidents
indicated that superintendent/principals should spend an average of 50.2% of their time on

2 What differences exist between board presidents, teachers’ union presidents, and current superintendent/principals in
their perception of the essential roles and responsibilities for the superintendent/principal?)

36
superintendent responsibilities and an average of 49.8% on principal responsibilities.
Superintendent/principals responded that they should spend an average of 52% of their time on
superintendent responsibilities and an average of 48% on principal responsibilities. Notably, time
allocation represents a disparity of almost 10% in the allocation of time related to superintendent
duties between board presidents and the two other respondent groups.

The Combined Position and District Survival

All three respondent groups overwhelming indicated that the combined
superintendent/principal role was essential in the long-term survival of their school districts. Eighty
percent of board presidents and 69% of teachers’ union presidents responded that the combined
role was a key factor in the long-term survival of their school district. Eighty-two percent of
superintendent/principals responded that the combined role was a key factor in the long-term
survival of their school district.

Most Essential Roles According to Board Presidents (RQ1)

While several roles received priority ratings of high and essential, the high frequency of
essential ratings for role model (M=4.57) and chief financial officer (M=4.50) combined with
receiving the highest mean scores (see Table 1), indicates that board presidents value a
superintendent/principal that serves as an example for others and understands the district’s
finances. Based on frequency counts, chief financial officer was selected as essential more often
than any other role. Role model received the second most essential ratings. Considering frequency
and mean data from board president responses, both role model and chief financial officer could be
regarded as the most essential roles of superintendent/principals.

Least Essential Role According to Board Presidents

The data indicated board presidents view the role of politician (M=2.75) as the least
essential, as it received, no selections of essential by board presidents. The next lowest mean was
one point higher.

Most Essential Responsibilities According to Board Presidents (RQ2)

According to survey data, as demonstrated of Table 2, board presidents believe that the
most essential responsibility of superintendent/principals is oversight of the district’s finances and
budgeting (M=4.75) which received the highest mean and the greatest frequency of essential
ratings (22).
While district financial oversight/budgeting may be considered the most essential
responsibility for superintendent/principals according to board presidents, the fact that data showed
three other responsibilities with a mean score of 4.50 or higher indicates that board

37
Table 1

Side-by Side Mean Scores from all Respondent Groups for Each Role
Role Board Teachers’ Superintendent/
President Union Principals
Role Model 4.57 4.46 4.69

Chief Financial Officer 4.50 4.49 4.77

Visionary Leader 4.43 4.08 4.35

Evaluator of Educator Performance 4.39 4.22 4.38

Building-level Communicator 4.21 4.15 4.42

Change Leader 4.19 3.69 4.25

Human Resource Manager 4.18 4.19 4.05

Public Relations/Communication Officer 4.14 4.22 4.11

Instructional Leader 3.93 3.56 4.54

Educational Expert/Instructional Leader 3.82 3.69 4.28

Building Manager 3.79 3.69 4.13

Disciplinarian 3.79 3.85 3.93

Curriculum Expert 3.75 3.41 3.84

Politician 2.75 2.88 3.08
Note: The roles with significant variance between the three respondent groups are indicated with
bold italics.
presidents find four responsibilities as essential priorities. Superintendent/principals should be
aware that board presidents are looking for a leader who also builds a positive and safe school
climate, evaluates teachers and staff and makes building-level personnel recommendations, and
builds relationships and establishes trust.

Least Essential Responsibility According to Board Presidents

The responsibility of oversight and supervision of student activities/extracurricular events
received the lowest mean score (M=3.39) and the lowest frequency of essential selections (five) by
board presidents. With these scores, this responsibility can be considered the lowest priority of the
20 responsibilities in this study. However, it is worth noting that the mean score does not indicate
that it is considered a low priority or not a priority by board presidents.

38
Most Essential Roles According to Teachers’ Union Presidents (RQ2)

Teachers’ union presidents value the roles of role model and chief financial officer most in
a superintendent/principal. With a mean difference of .03 between chief financial officer (M=4.49)
and role model (M=4.46), coupled with the fact that both roles received more essential ratings than
any other role, data indicates that these are the top two most essential roles for the
superintendent/principal according to the teachers’ union presidents who completed the survey.

Least Essential Role According to Teachers’ Union Presidents

Teachers’ union presidents placed a very low priority level on the role of politician. With a
mean score of 2.88, four ratings of not a priority, and the only mean score under 3.00, data
indicates the role of politician is a significantly lower priority than any other role.

39